IN RE: L.M.R. (2024)

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Valerie A. Pels, J.), entered on or about January 9, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, brings up for review a fact-finding order, same court and Judge, entered on or about March 30, 2023, determining, after a hearing, that respondent father abused the subject child, L.M.R., and derivatively abused the other three children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The father does not dispute that the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) made a prima facie showing that L.M.R.’s injuries were “of such a nature as would ordinarily not be sustained or exist except by reason of the acts or omissions of the parent or other person responsible for the care of such child” (Family Court Act § 1046[a][ii];  see also Matter of Philip M., 82 N.Y.2d 238, 244, 604 N.Y.S.2d 40, 624 N.E.2d 168 [1993]).  L.M.R., approximately two years old and on a trial discharge to the parents, presented to the hospital unable to bear weight on the child's left leg, with two fractures near the child's left knee, multiple scratches on the child's cheeks, abdominal distension, and bruises on the child's leg and face.  Upon further examination, it was determined that L.M.R. also had sustained multiple arm fractures which were at varying stages of healing.  ACS's medical witness, whom the court deemed credible, opined that, due to the nature and location of the injuries, as well as L.M.R.’s listless affect, the injuries were intentionally inflicted.

In opposition, the father offered the testimony of a medical witness, who minimized the confluence of L.M.R.’s injuries, even though they were sustained within a short period of time.  He attributed these injuries to the family's purported chaotic environment and to L.M.R. being accident prone.  Given the holes in the expert's assessment, the court properly found his testimony incredible and credited the testimony and expert opinion of ACS's medical witness instead (see Matter of Jacob V. [Shelly R. – Adonis V.], 203 A.D.3d 449, 450, 160 N.Y.S.3d 598 [1st Dept. 2022];  Matter of Ariah L. [Darrell L.], 198 A.D.3d 648, 650, 152 N.Y.S.3d 330 [2d Dept. 2021]).  The court also found the father's testimony to be self-serving and not credible.  The father has failed to articulate any persuasive basis to disturb the court's credibility determinations (see Matter of Amir A. [Matthew C.], 189 A.D.3d 401, 132 N.Y.S.3d 776 [1st Dept. 2020]).  Nor did the father rebut the presumption by blaming the mother, who had made an admission in the underlying proceeding, because a finding of abuse as to one parent is not a bar to making a finding against the other parent regarding the same incident of maltreatment (see Matter of Adonis M.C. [Breanna V.M.], 212 A.D.3d 452, 453, 181 N.Y.S.3d 246 [1st Dept. 2023]).

We have considered the father's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.